Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

ethics of a higher intelligence

Rate this topic


The Wrath

Recommended Posts

Here's an issue I've been thinking about for a while.

I find it to be very likely that there are alien civilizations elsewhere in the universe, and that many of them are vastly more advanced than we are. There could be aliens out there that are so much further down the evolutionary chain, that there is as much distance between us and them as there is between us and ants.

If this is true, to what extent can we apply our morals to them? If they came down here and exterminated us, what is it that makes that evil, when we do not think the same way about destroying an ant's nest?

Another question...assume that the aliens are to us what the Europeans were to the native Americans. I tend to agree that the oppression of the native Americans has been greatly exaggerated to ridiculous proportions, but then I wonder how we would react if aliens suddenly tried to colonize earth. How would we react? We might act towards them in much the same way that the native Americans acted towards the Europeans. Would we be right to do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this is fiction, here's my version...

These intelligent aliens are obviously living in a capitalist society. They come to earth and are disgusted that Rand was published decades ago and people still don't get it. They issue a proclamation that says everyone better read Rand and get with the program; if they don't find a rights-respecting earth when they return in a year's time, they'll have to use force. In the year that passes, anyone who understands Objectivism gets rich teaching other people how it works. A year later, the aliens return. They find some places where people have figured things out and other places that are a mess. They zap the bad places (unfortunately their technology isn't developed enough to read the minds of individual men). Then, they install overseeing police forces for a few decades, to ensure that rights are upheld, to ensure that things are kept in line, but most of the government is still earthling-run. Then, with humans so much more productive, creating tonnes of the stuff that the aliens want, business will boom and we'll all live happily ever after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If aliens came to Earth they would not want to colonise Earth! This is because they have already discovered an amazing fuel supply and an extremely fast transportation technology that would be required to get here from their distant star.

What use would Earth be to them if they have already figured out so much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand the point of that post, but the way I take it, you're saying that this issue isn't worth talking about, because it won't happen. Well, it may not happen anytime in the near future, but I don't think you can rule out the idea that inhabitants of Earth may, someday, come into contact with other civilizations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is true, to what extent can we apply our morals to them? If they came down here and exterminated us, what is it that makes that evil, when we do not think the same way about destroying an ant's nest?

They'd still depend on reason. Even more so if they were more intelligent. If ants were capable of reason, then it would be evil to kill them.

You could invent an alien that has a dogmatic definition of sentient life, which he clings to despite reason. IN that case, no matter how intelligent his race is, it's still evil to come and kill us for any reason. Doubly so if they waste their superior intellect on dogma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the answer is to the original question is, how willing are you to be treated like a toy or an ant?

The TV Series Babylon 5 dealt a lot with this issue, without giving away too many important plot points, one key story in the series was the discovery that Ancient Alien Civilizations had been traveling space and manipulating the "Younger Races" (us) when we were just genetic gloop. Ultimately, the story is partly about the younger races being able to stand up to the older ones and being able to set their own destiny without interference.

Now Moose, in the situation that you describe, the reason that the Alien Civilization would want to pass us across to the side would not be because they are smarter then us, but because they are stronger and more powerful then us. It would be their ability to use their high technology that treats our planet like an ant-hill which creates the scenario. ("Power flows from the barrel of a gun" and "Might makes right") The key here, is that their technology would give them the perspective that we appear so insignificant that they could remove us in one fell swoop.

Now one would hope that they would recognize that we have an especially wonderful anthill over here and that they would not want to smash us.

Also, you may be interested in this very short story:

http://www.terrybisson.com/meat.html

Edited by Strangelove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it to be very likely that there are alien civilizations elsewhere in the universe, and that many of them are vastly more advanced than we are.

I don't know how you can be sure of such a conclusion. I don't believe that any certainty about such claims is possible given a single data point, but arguments such as the rare earth hypothesis, the doomsday argument, and especially accelerating change suggest to me that we are probably alone in the universe, and if not, extremely unlikely to ever encounter a fellow biological civilization.

There could be aliens out there that are so much further down the evolutionary chain, that there is as much distance between us and them as there is between us and ants.

If that were so, we probably would never detect them, even if our solar system was wiped out as part of their plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is true, to what extent can we apply our morals to them?
Totally. Greet them, if they greet you back, engage in trade. If they eat you, it sucks to be you and we'll need to wipe them out. If they suffer from unfortunate premises, like the Kzinti or Klingons, we will have to change their philosophies.
Another question...assume that the aliens are to us what the Europeans were to the native Americans.
Why? Why not assume that they are like kudzu or zebra mussels, irrational destroyer-hordes. If they don't have free will and can't help their behavior, it's lightly sad that we'll have to destroy them to protect ourselves, but don't let that stop you from killing an alien.

The danger is that they might exercise their right of eminent domain to build a freeway, and not tell us.

Edited by DavidOdden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now one would hope that they would recognize that we have an especially wonderful anthill over here and that they would not want to smash us.

An excellent Twilight Zone episode depicted nearly exactly what you describe. Two human astronauts land on an alien planet. One of them secretly discovers a tiny ant-like civilization of rational beings. He decides to use his much greater physical power over them to dominate the alien ants. In fear, they build a huge totem of him, which he destroys at will to show how powerful he is.

When the evil astronaut shows his companion the ant-civilization and what he has done, the rational astronaut is appalled. He displays the rational sentiment you describe.

It is a great episode. I recommend it next time it is on TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an issue I've been thinking about for a while.

I find it to be very likely that there are alien civilizations elsewhere in the universe...

If i may ask, how did you arrive at this finding (that it is very likely they are there)? How is this different from any random expectation of things whose existence you have no evidence for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand the point of that post, but the way I take it, you're saying that this issue isn't worth talking about, because it won't happen. Well, it may not happen anytime in the near future, but I don't think you can rule out the idea that inhabitants of Earth may, someday, come into contact with other civilizations.

I'm saying that an advanced alien civilisation wouldn't care about a lump of rock that we call Earth, just as we don't care about an ant hill. Yes a child may destroy an ant hill on purpose. But if you put an ant hill in a box that requires one to solve a complex equation to open the box, then the ant hill remains safe from irrational children.

The distance between Earth and an alien civilisation ensures that we are in a child proof box, with our complex equation being the problem of how to get here. If aliens figure that out then they have already proved themselves rational enough to not destroy us.

Also, the fact that they have figured this out also ensures that anything on Earth would be useless to them as a resource. Would they want our oil in order to power their interstellar ships? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If i may ask, how did you arrive at this finding (that it is very likely they are there)? How is this different from any random expectation of things whose existence you have no evidence for?

I think that it is statistically likely. Take the chances that a star has planets, then the chances that any of those planets are capable of supporting life, then the chances that life actually evolved. These are, of course, tiny chances. But given the fact that there are billions of galaxies, each containing hundreds of millions of stars, I think it's a pretty good bet that some kind of life has evolved elsewhere in the universe. Until we see physical evidence for one, we obviously cannot draw the conclusion that there are, in fact, alien civilizations. But given the statistics, we can make predictions on its likelihood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But given the statistics, we can make predictions on its likelihood.

The stats aren't what they used to be. We've recently discovered a great many planets orbiting other stars. And each of these discoveries has involved systems much more different than ours. Naturally life may arise in systems that look nothnig like ours, but these discoveries show how little we really know about planetray systems.

Another thing, humanity is the world's most successful species biologically speaking. The only others that come close are the ones we carry along: our cattle, livestock, pets, symbiotes and parasites. Obviously intelligence and the ability to amnipulate the physical world, are of tremendous evolutionary value.

Why, then, has only one species, us, evolved that way?

I've no idea, except that it seems to be a very low probability development, otherwise we'd see more of it.

So, I am convinced we'll find life elsewhere. Even advanced lifeforms in complex relationships like what we see on Earth. I'm less hopeful we'll find much in the way of intelligence or technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given enough time, I think the evolution of a rational lifeform is pretty much inevitable.

You should convince the wicked environmentalist of this. Then there will be militant factions violently opposed to harming any non-rational lifeform out of the infinitesimal chance that one may evolve into a rational species in a few million years! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given enough time, I think the evolution of a rational lifeform is pretty much inevitable. I daresay that, in a few million years, humans (if they still exist) won't be the only ones.

That is a very interesting question.

Assuming we let evolution take its course, and don't purposefuly engineer other sentients, I doubt any other sentient species will ever arise. Not only is the likelyhood too small, but we make it easier for animals that live near us, or among us, to survive and reproduce without having to use their brains more than they already do.

Consider urban and suburban pests. Pigeons and other birds, rats, mice, racoons, even, in some places, deer and moose and bears. In some places there are suburban predators. You hear stories now and then of wolves, coyotes and even mountain lions raiding suburbs for prey. A dog, especially a small dog, is easier prey than what such animals are acostumed to.

Also, any proto-sentients would have to contend with us. That's no small task.

It's more likely we'll engineer sentients ourselves. The reasons for doing so are many and most are ugly. Imagine a smarter ape that can understand language and is docile. It could be used for menial labor in the cities and fields. How about a sentient, talking dog for use in the battlefield?

Science fiction is filled with such speculations. Look up Orson Scott Card's "Lovelock" for an example of sentient slaves made to order, or Heinlen's short "Jerry Was A Man."

Now, is there a reason not involving slavery for creating sentient beings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a very interesting question.

Assuming we let evolution take its course, and don't purposefuly engineer other sentients, I doubt any other sentient species will ever arise. Not only is the likelyhood too small, but we make it easier for animals that live near us, or among us, to survive and reproduce without having to use their brains more than they already do.

Consider urban and suburban pests. Pigeons and other birds, rats, mice, racoons, even, in some places, deer and moose and bears. In some places there are suburban predators. You hear stories now and then of wolves, coyotes and even mountain lions raiding suburbs for prey. A dog, especially a small dog, is easier prey than what such animals are acostumed to.

Also, any proto-sentients would have to contend with us. That's no small task.

It's more likely we'll engineer sentients ourselves. The reasons for doing so are many and most are ugly. Imagine a smarter ape that can understand language and is docile. It could be used for menial labor in the cities and fields. How about a sentient, talking dog for use in the battlefield?

Science fiction is filled with such speculations. Look up Orson Scott Card's "Lovelock" for an example of sentient slaves made to order, or Heinlen's short "Jerry Was A Man."

Now, is there a reason not involving slavery for creating sentient beings?

You make good points and, essentially, answer your own question. Your question was: why have no more rational animals evolved on this planet? The possible answer: we got here first and created conditions such that it is unlikely to happen to any other species.

But our presence on this planet has no effect on the evolution of life on other planets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make good points and, essentially, answer your own question. Your question was: why have no more rational animals evolved on this planet? The possible answer: we got here first and created conditions such that it is unlikely to happen to any other species.

That possible answer might apply to the Neanderthals. But why haven't there been more sentient or near-sentient species?

Some people believe dolphins and other cetaceans may be as intelligent as we are. I don't think so (I did in the past). If they were, we'd have established real communications with them by now, rather than wondering whether it's possible. some of the great apes are very smart, and furhter they have hands capable of manipulating things. But they, too, are below the conceptual level of intelligence (same objections as dolphins). Are there any others? Nor do we know of any likely candidates in the past. In fact, till the age of mammals, brains were rather small.

Also, neanderthals were closely related to us. Recent findings indicate they migth have shared 99.5% of our genome (chimps share 99%). And all primates are also our biological relations. The rest are all mammals. some of our earlier ancestors were undoubtedly sentien, Homo abilis, for example, but they either evolved in our direction or went extinct.

Therefore we can postulate that only late in our planets life there was even a remote chance of sentience. and even then it took its time evolving, and did so only in a small handful of species, of which only 2 did anything with it. Even confining ourselves to mammals, the percentage of even near-sentient species is exceedingly small. Meaning the development is not very likely.

But our presence on this planet has no effect on the evolution of life on other planets.

None whatsoever. But we can only extrapolate from what we know. One thing we have recently learned is that our extrapolation of planetary systems was way off. My extrapolation of evolution might be just as bad. For all I know, evert third planet with life may have a sentient species, or half a dozen. We lack the data to even begin to guess.

I can't even say that SETI's failure to date is indicative of anything. Radio may be practical only for a short time (we don't use semaphores or smoke signals any more, do we?), to be quickly replaced with somethign better we cannot, as yet, even conceive. Or maybe every other intelligence has evolved on worlds much drier than ours, and they all discovered optic fibers rather early, and never had any need for radio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that the issue is the level of intelligence, as if on a sliding scale. I think you trip a digital switch once you have a conceptual, and hence volitional being.

Using that thought then, is Moose hypothesizing some other level which trips some other switch that changes the moral code. What would that be, exactly?

I don't much care if the aliens are uber-smart. That's not the point. I think that if you look at hte issue this way, the hypothesis seems a little more arbitrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that the issue is the level of intelligence, as if on a sliding scale. I think you trip a digital switch once you have a conceptual, and hence volitional being.

I agree that there is a divide between conceptual and perceptual levels. That's why a genius is as volitional as a regular Joe or even a retarded person. But there is a sliding scale of human intelligence. There may be one between different volitional beings. That is wht Moose was asking at first, and that's what i think is irrelevant.

Using that thought then, is Moose hypothesizing some other level which trips some other switch that changes the moral code. What would that be, exactly?

I don't think he is. If he were, then it would be a terrible or a really good idea for a science fiction story. A terrible idea would ahve the aliens fucntioning on Platonic metaphysics and epistemology. They wouldn't see the chair you offered them for seeing the manifest idea of all chairs, or whatever Plato was talking about. As for a good idea, I don't see how there could be anything above the conceptual level. Even if hypothetical aliens were aware and cognisant of, say, additional spatial dimensions, or the absolut passage of time, or of subatomic structures, that would be a perceptual difference (such as there is between a blind man and one who can see).

I don't much care if the aliens are uber-smart. That's not the point. I think that if you look at hte issue this way, the hypothesis seems a little more arbitrary.

Look at it backwards. Suppsoe we found an alien race that is volitional, but has a lower intelligence than ours. How does the question look then? In fact, there are large numbers of humans with low intelligence. The mentally retarded, those with severe learning disabilities, people with certain kinds of brain damage, etc.

Now, what is the moral way of dealing with these people? I submit the answer varies: are they family, friends, strangers, customers, neighbors, acquaintances, etc etc? For the most part, you'd deal with them as you would with anyone else. You wouldn't steal from a retarded man because he is retarded, nor rape a woman with Down syndrome because she has Down syndrome. In other words, you'd respect their rights so long as they respect yours. You'd trade with them. To be sure, you could more easily take advantage of them (charging them higher prices, say, or allowing for longer delivery periods and such), and that would not be moral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question I'm really asking is this:

If there is an alien race that is so far advanced beyond us that we are like ants to them, why would it be immoral for them to come mine the earth for resources and kill us if we get in the way? Nevermind the fact that such a race would have no use for our primitive resources. Assume that they do have a use for them.

I know that the easy answer is that we have crossed some critical threshold (i.e. the capacity to reason) that makes it immoral for us to be murdered. But suppose that the aliens have crossed some other critical threshold that puts them on a level of consciousness that we can't even fathom. To them, we look like barely conscious automatons that only operate on a very primitive level of reasoning and morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that the easy answer is that we have crossed some critical threshold (i.e. the capacity to reason) that makes it immoral for us to be murdered. But suppose that the aliens have crossed some other critical threshold that puts them on a level of consciousness that we can't even fathom. To them, we look like barely conscious automatons that only operate on a very primitive level of reasoning and morality.

Ok. What other critical threshold? Because, as I said before, I just don't see there are any.

Rational aliens might consider us savages, with plenty of reason. But that's not what you're asking.

But in other to discuss your question, we need to know what other possible levels of consciousness might exist. I submit there are none. If you ahve any in mind, do tell. Otherwise, I'm afraid you're falling on a common SF fallacy.

Let's try. In some SF novels there are beings who make up collective minds. They're non-sentient bacteria, or small insects, or even animals, until they link together, usually telepathically, to form a sentient brain. There are beings who are sentient and control a horde of non-sentient beings, say a queen bee that is volitional ruling over a hive of perceptual level drone and worker bees. In such cases, the physical composition of the mind is different from ours, but the mind is the same.

Still not what your'e asking, right? And I still say you need to give a more concrete basis for your question.

The common SF fallacy is that a superior intellect, or even merely a faster one, gives one moral superiority over the less intelligent, or the less swift (and of course every alien species, robot and sentient dust cloud is vastly more itnelligent than any human could ever dream fo being). If there is an irrational view in favor of intelligence, this has to be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...